https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427785 In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a plea that the complaint was premature was rejected where the accused did not reply to the statutory notice or inform the complainant that the account was blocked. The Court held that such silence did not support quashing on the ground of non-maintainability. It further held that once the trial had substantially commenced and the case had reached Section 313 examination, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash proceedings on disputed factual defences, which remained matters for trial. The petitions were dismissed and the trial was directed to continue. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427785 In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a plea that the complaint was premature was rejected where the accused did not reply to the statutory notice or inform the complainant that the account was blocked. The Court held that such silence did not support quashing on the ground of non-maintainability. It further held that once the trial had substantially commenced and the case had reached Section 313 examination, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash proceedings on disputed factual defences, which remained matters for trial. The petitions were dismissed and the trial was directed to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427785